Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, November 04, 2019

2020 MODERN BASEBALL ERA BALLOT

Nine former big league players and one executive comprise the 10-name Modern Baseball Era ballot to be reviewed and voted upon Dec. 8 at the Baseball Winter Meetings.

Dwight Evans, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Marvin Miller, Thurman Munson, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker are the candidates the Modern Baseball Era Committee will consider for Hall of Fame election for the Class of 2020. All candidates are former players except for Miller, who was the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association from 1966-82. All candidates except for Miller and Munson are living.

Any candidate who receives votes on 75 percent of the ballots cast by the 16-member Modern Baseball Era Committee will earn election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 26, 2020, along with any electees who emerge from the 2020 Baseball Writers’ Association of America election, to be announced on Jan. 21, 2020.

The Modern Baseball Era is one of four Era Committees, each of which provide an avenue for Hall of Fame consideration to managers, umpires and executives, as well as players retired for more than 15 seasons.

The BBHOF season has now started- what say we concerning this ballot?

 

QLE Posted: November 04, 2019 at 05:01 PM | 242 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dale murphy, dave parker, don mattingly, dwight evans, hall of fame, lou whitaker, marvin miller, steve garvey, ted simmons, thurman munson, tommy john, veterans committee

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. ajnrules Posted: November 04, 2019 at 05:26 PM (#5898578)
I'm still in favor of Tommy John and Marvin Miller going in. I'll have to do a little bit more research as to whether to cast the two other votes for Dwight Evans, Ted Simmons or Lou Whitaker.

They need to stop putting Steve Garvey and Dave Parker on the ballot, especially while Bobby Grich is still on the outside looking in.
   2. Ken Griffey Junior Bacon Cheeseburger Posted: November 04, 2019 at 05:29 PM (#5898579)
Dwight Evans
Ted Simmons
Lou Whitaker
   3. RJ in TO Posted: November 04, 2019 at 05:33 PM (#5898580)
Miller, Simmons, and Whitaker, and I could probably be talked into Evans (who I would like to have more of a peak) and Thurman Munson (who probably did enough to justify induction by the standards of catchers).

   4. Tubbs is Bobby Grich when he flys off the handle Posted: November 04, 2019 at 05:55 PM (#5898588)
I'm happy to finally see Evans & Whitaker make the ballot. The Historical Overview Committee has brought back 7 of 8 the non-elected candidates from the previous ballot with Luis Tiant being the only one not to return. I think having spent most of his Hall of Fame candidacy compared to Golden Era candidates such as Kaat, Oliva, Hodges & Allen and then being moved to this group hurt Tiant.

I hope Munson's prescense doesn't pull votes away from Simmons

The four candidates I would chose would be Evans, Whitaker, Simmons and whoever seems to be drawing the most support among Murphy, John & Munson since I'd be glad to see any of them elected

Miller should have been elected while he was still living and stated after missing by a single vote that he did not care to be on the ballot after he passed away.
   5. bachslunch Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:15 PM (#5898592)
Yes for:

Miller
Evans
Simmons
Whitaker
John

Surprisingly decent ballot.
   6. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:21 PM (#5898594)
Whose dog did Bobby Grich run over to be left off the ballot again? And with an ex-Angels exec running the HOF now?

His career falls perfectly within the 1970-1987 window (he played from 1970-1986) and, while I know this isn't a WAR competition, he's literally the WAR leader for that time period among non-HOFers (he's #4 if you include HOFers, at least among position players).

If you don't like arbitrary endpoints, add 5 years to the beginning and end of that timeframe, so now you're looking at 1965-1992, and the only guy ahead of him is Pete Rose (he's #13 if you include HOFers).

Heck, add *10* years at the beginning and end (1960-1997) and he's #4 among non-HOFers, with the only guys ahead of him being Bonds, Rose and Whitaker (he's #22 if you include HOFers).

Not saying that should end the discussion, but it should at least get you on the ballot.
   7. SoSH U at work Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:23 PM (#5898596)
Whitaker goes in, Simmons and/or Miller joining him.

I don't know why Grich can't get any traction, though we can dream that a Sweet Lou election could at least get him on the ballot.
   8. The Duke Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:24 PM (#5898597)
Miller
Simmons
Whitaker
Evans

In that order. I don’t expect Miller to get anywhere close. Simmons was one vote away. I hope the committee does the right thing for him. Sweet Lou should be an easy choice but I bet he doesn’t get the votes. I am borderline on Evans but he’s certainly a better choice than Baines. He’s one of those guys that’s just on the wrong side of the imaginary line but I loved his style when I was growing up
   9. Tim M Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:25 PM (#5898598)
Old timey Sox fan here, loved Dewey back in the day, but he never felt like a HOF'er (Jim Rice felt much more so) but let's take a second look... career -3.8 dWAR? What? I thought he was the best RF i'd ever seen. Is this an adjustment for RF vs all positions, like any RF gets a negative no matter what? .. nope, Barry Bonds has +7.6 dWAR playing LF. Ichiro has +4.9 playing RF. Was Dewey actually not-so-great in RF?
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:36 PM (#5898601)
Was Dewey actually not-so-great in RF?'


It's a couple of things. First, positional adjustment. It's not easy to compile positive WAR as a rightfielder. Second, WAR likes him through his age 29 season: 7.0 dWAR up until then, with a serious decline over the back half of his career.
   11. Tim M Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:44 PM (#5898602)
a serious decline over the back half of his career.


Yeah, he always had that rocket arm, but toward the end he didn't cover much ground. Sadly gotta vote no on an old favorite.
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 04, 2019 at 06:57 PM (#5898604)
Evans has the 20th most Rfield (the defensive component of WAR) of any corner outfielder in the integration era. This is amongst players who played more than 75% of their games in LF or RF. He was #15 amongst players who played more than 60% of their games in RF during that time period.

He was a very good RF, but as SoSH notes it's hard to accumulate dWAR as a RF.
   13. Hank Gillette Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:04 PM (#5898608)
How many candidates can the voters vote for?
   14. PreservedFish Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:09 PM (#5898609)
At what point do they decide that an era has sufficient representation in the Hall? Never?
   15. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:29 PM (#5898611)
Miller, Simmons, and Whitaker, and I could probably be talked into Evans (who I would like to have more of a peak) and Thurman Munson (who probably did enough to justify induction by the standards of catchers).


Exactly my ballot, my secondary players and my thoughts.
   16. The Duke Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:30 PM (#5898612)
Each of the more recent era committees vote more frequently and the eras from pre-1970 don’t get many looks any more which is as it should be. I like the way they are doing things now. Almost by definition they are lowering the bar which gets everyone mad and it’s still highly at risk for a stitch up like Baines last year.


With very few normal process hall of famers in the next few years there will be more focus on getting the old-timers to put people in
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:34 PM (#5898614)
Yes for:

Miller
Evans
Simmons
Whitaker
John

Surprisingly decent ballot.


Drawback is that it means the vote will be split... The Cardinals do a Cardinals hall of fame, and it's almost always obvious who is going to make it in as the committee more or less selects a wide range of candidates, but a clear delineation in popularity and respect for the better guys and the other guys. As pointed above, Munson probably takes votes away from Simmons... Garvey and Mattingly probably don't have any chance... and Evans probably has no chance, even with an improved voting group. My Prediction is Whitaker and maybe Miller make it...
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:36 PM (#5898617)
At what point do they decide that an era has sufficient representation in the Hall? Never?


Probably never. As Duke points out though the further away from time you get, the less votes they are having. So it's allowing for more data to join in the discussion for the next go around.
   19. Moeball Posted: November 04, 2019 at 07:38 PM (#5898618)
Rice and Lynn had better, or at least more notable, peaks but Dewey was actually easily the best player of the 3. The surprising thing to me is that his biggest gap over them in his career is as a hitter. His 353 rbat runs is well ahead of Rice, who is 60 behind him. I guess it pays to be good for a long time.

Simmons got a bad rep his whole career about his defense, but I've never seen any statistical evidence that really supports this. As good a hitter as he was, and with unusual durability for a catcher as well, I'm surprised it's taken him this long to get in.

If I were voting I would probably go Whitaker, Simmons, Evans, John, Miller.

BTW - I was in Cooperstown for Induction weekend 2018 - specifically there for Trevor and Trammell - and I accidentally bumped into Sweet Lou on my way over to Doubleday Field for the Costas announcer ceremony that Saturday. Lou was in a cautiously optimistic mood, you could say. Didn't want to get his hopes up too high, but there were some encouraging signs. Not only was Trammell saying at every opportunity to speak that Lou belongs in the HOF, but Lou was also encouraged that other contemporaries of his such as Blyleven, Brett, Carew, Winfield and Eckersley had also personally come up to him and told him they were advocating on his behalf as well. I hope it worked and that he gets in this time.
   20. The Duke Posted: November 04, 2019 at 08:28 PM (#5898626)
My guess is there is a conveyor belt approach to these committees. Simmons should get in given his support two years ago. Miller gets one more shot because, holy cow, how you can you have a hall of fame without him, Evans and/or Whitaker gets 6-10 votes and one of them goes in two years from now. None of those other guys have been getting any support.
   21. Darren Posted: November 04, 2019 at 08:31 PM (#5898627)
Hooray for Evans. Great player, deserving HOF. It's always been a little surprising to me that with his nearly HOF offensive numbers, plus 8 Gold Gloves, he didn't get closer. Guess TEH FEAR was more important.
   22. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: November 04, 2019 at 08:58 PM (#5898637)
My view is unpopular around here: just close down the various VCs. Keeping Sweet Lou out is worth it to keep the likes of Baines and Morris out.

Given a vote, though, I'd go with Whitaker.
   23. SoSH U at work Posted: November 04, 2019 at 08:59 PM (#5898638)
Each of the more recent era committees vote more frequently and the eras from pre-1970 don’t get many looks any more which is as it should be. I like the way they are doing things now. Almost by definition they are lowering the bar which gets everyone mad and it’s still highly at risk for a stitch up like Baines last year.


The only problem is the group that Baines was in shouldn't have existed for another cycle or two. As evidenced by his election, there just isn't enough Hall talent from that particular period (at least until the dam breaks on the known or nearly-known steroid guys).

   24. Baldrick Posted: November 04, 2019 at 09:04 PM (#5898640)
Yes
Dwight Evans
Ted Simmons
Lou Whitaker

Maybe
Tommy John
Thurman Munson

It's complicated
Marvin Miller

No, but thanks for your service
Dale Murphy

No
Don Mattingly, Dave Parker

Hell no
Steve Garvey
   25. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: November 04, 2019 at 09:23 PM (#5898644)
Has the Hall announced who will be the voters on the committee?
   26. The Duke Posted: November 04, 2019 at 09:28 PM (#5898647)
For reference:

2019 Results of the Today’s Game Era Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Lee Smith (16 votes, 100%); Harold Baines (12 votes, 75 percent); Lou Piniella (11 votes, 68.8%); Albert Belle, Joe Carter, Will Clark, Orel Hershiser, Davey Johnson, Charlie Manuel and George Steinbrenner each received fewer than five votes.

2018 Results of the Modern Baseball Era Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Jack Morris (14 votes, 87.5%); Alan Trammell (13 votes, 81.3%); Ted Simmons (11 votes, 68.8%); Marvin Miller (7 votes, 43.8%); Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and Luis Tiant each received fewer than seven votes.

2013-2017 - a few managers execs

2012 - rob santo got elected

2011 Results miller 11 votes 68%, Concepcion 8 votes 50%, blue, Guidry, Oliver Simmons, Stalin, Garvey all with less than 8 votes.

So miller almost made it in 2011 and Simmons almost made it in 2018

   27. Walt Davis Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:01 PM (#5898650)
On Dewey's offense ... yep, the gap to Rice is mainly about career length (and obviously not fading too fast so the career can keep going). Evans through age 36 is very much a match for Rice -- 30 more PAs, just 19 more Rbat, both 128 OPS+, Evans +16 on OBP, Rice +24 on SLG (virtually identical ISOs). Evans of course way ahead on DP and dWAR so a substantial 15 WAR gap.

On Evans' Rtz numbers dropping off at 29 -- there aren't other indicators of a substantial loss in speed. He was never a good base stealer but his post-29 numbers aren't any worse than earlier. He actually hit 3 more triples after 29. He did become just a half-time RF (1B then DH) starting at 35 so presumably something was not quite right by then.
   28. stevegamer Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:25 PM (#5898651)
I can easily vote for Miller, Simmons, and Whitaker.

Miller has a unique place in baseball history. Is he a better candidate than (insert mediocre former comissionner here) was? I think yes.
Simmons & Whitaker should be in already.

Possibles:
Evans, John, Munson

I like Evans more than Rice, but I don't want to make it about a single direct comparison. Would likely vote for him after research, though.

Munson has the shortened career, and it comes down to how to value him without the death if one is interested in doing so.

John was good, and pitched a long time, and has a surgery named after him, which helps slightly.

Felt like one, then fell apart:
Murphy

Not qualified:
Mattingly, Parker, & Garvey not good enough as players. I could see Mattingly getting in as a combined player & managerial career if he puts together a good career in that regard.
   29. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:26 PM (#5898652)
Has the Hall announced who will be the voters on the committee?
The information doesn’t seem to be available on any of the obvious places on the HOF website, and Google isn’t helpful, either. No excuse for that, IMHO, but it appears that accountability isn’t a priority.
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:31 PM (#5898655)
Old timey Sox fan here, loved Dewey back in the day, but he never felt like a HOF'er (Jim Rice felt much more so)

as I and others have noted before, "felt like a HOFer" decisions tend to be set in concrete as a player reaches his 30th birthday - and what a player does in his 30s doesn't move the needle much, remarkably enough.

if you flip Dewey's decades, it falls into place more neatly.
   31. Jaack Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:32 PM (#5898656)
If I had a ballot, I'd vote Whitaker, John, Simmons, and either Miller or Evans - hard to decide whether Miller's wishes not to be elected after death shold be honored or whether the historical record of the Hall is more important. Evans is pretty borderline for me. Wouldn't hate a Munson or Murphy election.

I think that Whitaker and Simmons get elected. Simmons was so close last time and Whitaker seems to have momentum with a bit of a surge of notable supporters. Miller gets the third most votes. Someone random gets enough votes for them to list it... I'll say.... Mattingly.

The good thing is that these committees are finally consolidating votes so they can actually elect guys. Hopefully, they can get a little better judgement. While I disagree with the Morris election, they elected him because he got big support from the BBWAA. Harold Baines was the really terrible one.
   32. John Northey Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:40 PM (#5898657)
Lots of guys I like on this one... In order....
Locks...
Lou Whitaker - should've been in long ago
Marvin Miller - how can there be a question?
Dwight Evans - excellent player should've been in long ago

Marginal...
Tommy John - marginal as player, but add in his legend thanks to the surgery and he belongs
Ted Simmons - looks like a HOF'er stats wise, but few thought so during his career. On the edge.
Dale Murphy - massive peak, fell off a cliff at 32 - lands under the 'if Jim Rice is in so should he' category, but marginal imo, barely over the Rice line while Parker just under

No's to : Dave Parker, Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, Thurman Munson - all HOVG but not HOF imo.

If Sweet Lou isn't in this time an inquiry should happen. Miller will probably be screwed over depending on who is on the panel. I expect way too much support for Mattingly and Garvey who really don't belong anywhere near the HOF.
   33. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: November 04, 2019 at 10:47 PM (#5898660)
1) Whitaker
2) Miller
3) Simmons
4) John
5) Evans

But unless most of the 16 voters are very similar in their preferences, it'd be tough for more than, say, two of them to make it, right?
   34. SoSH U at work Posted: November 04, 2019 at 11:51 PM (#5898665)
But unless most of the 16 voters are very similar in their preferences, it'd be tough for more than, say, two of them to make it, right?


Yes. They can only vote for four, so it takes a considerable amount of consensus (such as with the Cox, Torre, LaRussa class) to get more than two.

For example, in the last Golden Era (or whatever they call the era before this one), virtually every voter maxed out his ballot. But because there was no consensus choice, they elected no one.



   35. Howie Menckel Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:15 AM (#5898667)
Many/most of these voters know each other.

I suspect that miraculously, Ted "Simba" Simmons will get in.

I have mentioned here for years that Simmons was Posada's kryptonite - not that he needs any.

you can't even look at Posada as a candidate before Simmons gets in.

same was true for Pettitte of Mussina, who had more wins, fewer losses, better regular-season ERA, better postseason ERA - a clean sweep. but now Mussina is in - and soon, Simmons too.
   36. Rob_Wood Posted: November 05, 2019 at 02:57 AM (#5898678)
Here are the Career Pennant Added using a Sliding Replacement level (CPASR) values for these nine players:
1.019 Lou Whitaker
0.857 Dwight Evans
0.681 Thurman Munson
0.621 Dale Murphy
0.613 Ted Simmons
0.595 Tommy John
0.594 Don Mattingly
0.432 Dave Parker
0.420 Steve Garvey

I would vote for:
1) Whitaker
2) Evans
   37. Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight Posted: November 05, 2019 at 05:24 AM (#5898680)
Miller, Munson, Whitaker, Simmons.
   38. John DiFool2 Posted: November 05, 2019 at 07:52 AM (#5898684)
if you flip Dewey's decades, it falls into place more neatly.


The 1981 strike hurt him, a lot, given that it was his best season rate-wise.
   39. PreservedFish Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:09 AM (#5898686)
I'm not familiar with CPASR. What are the historical standards? Does it consider different seasons discretely?
   40. TomH Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:55 AM (#5898696)
Evans had some fine clutch moments in the post-season. WPA overall is 0.64, and some of that was in series they were totally out of (88 & 90); it also doesn't capture his catch that saved game 6 of the 75 WS..
   41. Mr Dashwood Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:56 AM (#5898698)
Hey [36] Rob Wood! Are you the Rob Wood of the 1990 Baseball Woodview? My copy from abebooks.com just arrived yesterday. (I also have the '89 Baseball Abstract.)

* * * *

A while ago I did a thing where I discovered that the standards of the relatively recent HoF BBWAA elections for non-pitchers were captured using oWAR over a 14-year period and a minimum of 10,000 PA for the career and a PED exclusion.

By that standard, Whitaker should be in already, while Simmons and Evans were right on the edge. Simmons has a slight advantage over Evans in that he played as a catcher.

   42. Mr Dashwood Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:01 AM (#5898700)
BTW, by that oWAR thing, Whitaker is arguably the most egregious error out there. And the election of Vladimir Guerrero strengthened the case for Evans.

The election of Simmons, Evans and Vlad in such a short space of time would suggest a new standard emerging, a slightly lower one.

People would start looking at Brett Butler, after that.
   43. PreservedFish Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:08 AM (#5898703)
What makes more sense, Omar Vizquel as "the greatest defensive shortstop of his generation" or Brett Butler as "the greatest bunter of all time"?
   44. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:27 AM (#5898713)
Clearly Evans, Miller, Simmons and Whitaker would be my ballot. I would also support Tommy John but there are 4 other better choices.
   45. jobu Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:36 AM (#5898717)
Yes: Miller, Whitaker, Evans, Simmons

Remaining Order: John, Munson, Parker, Murphy, Mattingly, Garvey

Having grown up watching all these players, I love the ballot. What is most interesting about it is that if you were to count "future Hall of Famer" references for these players during their careers, I suspect that Garvey, Mattingly, Parker, and Murphy would be near the top, and Whitaker, Evans, and Simmons would be at the bottom.
   46. Mr Dashwood Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:37 AM (#5898718)
What makes more sense, Omar Vizquel as "the greatest defensive shortstop of his generation" or Brett Butler as "the greatest bunter of all time"?

Gosh, I have to choose?
   47. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:29 AM (#5898753)
Jay Jaffe with an article up on fangraphs. What’s most interesting are the names that keep getting left off including k Hernandez, Grich, nettles and Bando. I can’t imagine why they keep trotting out Garvey, Parker, Mattingly and Murphy and not giving others at least a look.
   48. cookiedabookie Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:30 AM (#5898755)
For me, I'd vote Miller, Whitaker, Munson, and Simmons, with apologies to Evans. But given the Baines election, I suspect that Murphy and Garvey get in, with Parker and Simmons as a possibility.
   49. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 05, 2019 at 11:27 AM (#5898772)
What’s most interesting are the names that keep getting left off including k Hernandez, Grich, nettles and Bando. I can’t imagine why they keep trotting out Garvey, Parker, Mattingly and Murphy and not giving others at least a look.


Setting aside the fact that different voters look at different things and BBTF is pretty far from the universal consensus of baseball fans everywhere. In a vote like this, you actually want to throw a few "anti-ringers" (?) onto the ballot to help get deserving candidates elected. As others have noted, the voting limit here is 4 names and the requirement for election is 75%.

If you were to put together a ballot of, say, Sal Bando, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Bobby Grich, Keith Hernandez, Tommy John, Thurman Munson, Graig Nettles, Ted Simmons, and Lou Whitaker, and open up the voting to BBTF folks, but limit everybody to no more than four "yeses" with a 75% induction requirement, either nobody would get elected or a bunch of those guys would get 0-2 votes. It's just how the math would have to work.

It's a stupid system because of this, but if the goal is to elect two or three guys, the best way to produce that in this system is to pre-select 3 or 4 serious candidates and fill in the rest of the ballot with guys who won't be stealing votes from the serious candidates.
   50. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 05, 2019 at 11:29 AM (#5898773)
given the Baines election


Harold Baines was elected because Jerry Reinsdorf adores him like a son, Reinsdorf was on the committee, and Reinsdorf is apparently a persuasive fellow. That and the rest of the ballot was pretty weak. I'd be pretty surprised if there was anybody on the current ballot where even half of that would come into play.
   51. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:00 PM (#5898781)
The committees meet first to discuss before voting, right? So I think that gives them time to coalesce around a winner or two and then everyone can vote their favorites to help them get into next round
   52. SoSH U at work Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:10 PM (#5898785)
So I think that gives them time to coalesce around a winner or two and then everyone can vote their favorites to help them get into next round


What next round?
   53. caspian88 Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:19 PM (#5898788)
I think the Baines induction is about as indicative as Punxatawney Phil seeing his shadow. It was a fluke that occured due to a unique combination of factors unlikely to be repeated and unlikely to herald any future inductions.
   54. SoSH U at work Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:20 PM (#5898789)
I think the Baines induction is about as indicative as Punxatawney Phil seeing his shadow. It was a fluke that occured due to a unique combination of factors unlikely to be repeated and unlikely to herald any future inductions.


Exactly.
   55. cookiedabookie Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:24 PM (#5898792)
I think the Baines induction is about as indicative as Punxatawney Phil seeing his shadow. It was a fluke that occured due to a unique combination of factors unlikely to be repeated and unlikely to herald any future inductions.


I hope so...

Also, they need to change the rules so that a player can't be nominated on consecutive era ballots unless they got 50%+ in the previous ballot. Let's get some new faces on these ballots, instead of seeing the same guys that are nowhere near induction.
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: November 05, 2019 at 12:41 PM (#5898799)
Also, they need to change the rules so that a player can't be nominated on consecutive era ballots unless they got 50%+ in the previous ballot. Let's get some new faces on these ballots, instead of seeing the same guys that are nowhere near induction.


The problem with that is what Kiko points out (and what we saw in that most recent Golden Era ballot). Given the voting limitations, a ballot that's too good may produce no inductees.

   57. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2019 at 01:25 PM (#5898824)
The committee that keeps putting the same names on the ballot is essentially sending a message that these are the best remaining players of the era. Hard to see how Grich ever gets inducted if he can’t make it through the screening processes.
   58. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 05, 2019 at 01:33 PM (#5898829)
Miller, Whitaker, Simmons & Munson would be a good day’s work for the Committee, and perhaps send a message about proper positional adjustment for catchers.
   59. Rob_Wood Posted: November 05, 2019 at 02:05 PM (#5898839)
I'm not familiar with CPASR. What are the historical standards? Does it consider different seasons discretely?


CPASR (surely one of the worst acronyms of all time) is derived directly from a player's season-by-season WAA and WAR values (I take these from BB-Reference). I then convert the WAA & WAR values into a Pennant Added figure using information gleaned from extensive simulations looking into how often that WAA & WAR combo takes a random team from not winning a pennant (in the old 8-team leagues) to winning a pennant. Many people have a Pennant Added framework and mine is very similar to the others.

My final step, actually it is baked into the previous step, is to adjust the Replacement Level over time to reflect the opportunity cost (in player development, drafts, trades, etc.) of a player who plays for a long time. I cannot remember exactly what my assumption is but it is something like the Replacement Level in year 10 is the current Replacement Level and then is adjusted linearly so that the Replacement Level in Year 20 (and beyond) is the league average. The idea is that a 20-year veteran with positive WAR but negative WAA actually hurts his team since he essentially locked up a roster/lineup spot for 20 years that could have gone to some younger player (who maybe could have been drafted 10 years ago, traded for, signed as free agent, etc.).

Here are more CPASR figures to get a sense where the guys above fall on the all-time leader-board:

3.263 Babe Ruth (numero uno)
2.536 Willie Mays
1.549 Frank Robinson
1.210 George Brett
1.069 Frank Thomas
1.064 Bobby Grich
1.019 Lou Whitaker **
1.004 Duke Snider
0.955 Ryne Sandberg
0.907 Tim Raines
0.890 Sal Bando
0.857 Dwight Evans **
0.833 Joe Medwick
0.808 Eddie Murray
0.763 Will Clark
0.715 Dave Winfield
0.690 Jack Clark
0.681 Thurman Munson **
0.646 Fred Lynn
0.628 Jim Rice
0.621 Dale Murphy **
0.613 Ted Simmons **
0.604 Tony Perez
0.595 Tommy John **
0.594 Don Mattingly **
0.572 David Justice
0.541 Amos Otis
0.510 Johnny Callison
0.478 Cecil Cooper
0.439 Don Money
0.432 Dave Parker **
0.420 Steve Garvey **
0.403 Richie Hebner
   60. flournoy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 02:37 PM (#5898854)
Interesting to see David Justice's placement on a list like that that accounts for "roster clog," as it was the Braves' trade of Dale Murphy to the Phillies that opened up right field for him.
   61. Walt Davis Posted: November 05, 2019 at 04:49 PM (#5898919)
The election of Simmons, Evans and Vlad in such a short space of time would suggest a new standard emerging, a slightly lower one.

Apples and oragnes. The decisions of VCs (of various guises) have had little/no influence on BBWAA standards. Besides, Vlad is a very traditional BBWAA pick -- MVP plus lots of votes, high BA, popular and memorable, everybody pretty much decided he was a future HoFer when he was 30. Vlad's election is more similar to Puckett and has little relation to a guy like Evans. Raines eventually being elected and finally seeing a big jump for Walker are more (potentially) indicative of how somebody like Evans would do today than Vlad's election.

But I suspect that Helton and Abreu -- reasonable Evans-types -- won't make it out of the gate. Rolen's another Evans-type who has made some progress but doesn't suggest a sea change has occurred yet.

DE 272/370/470, 127 OPS+, 353 Rbat, 67 WAR, no major milestones, 3 AS, little MVP love
TH 316/414/539, 133 OPS+, 424 Rbat, 61 WAR, no major milestones, 5 AS, little MVP love
BA 291/395/475, 128 OPS+, 369 Rbat, 60 WAR, no major milestones, 2 AS, little MVP love

Evans probably has the best case but it's close. Note Helton and Evans' WAA are the same; the separation between DE and BA is all about age 36+. None of these guys has any sort of narrative. This is the issue I tend to have with guys like Evans -- there are rather a number of good all-around guys with a lot of their value tied up in walks or defense with little to distinguish them. At least Raines had "best player in the NL for 5 years" and Gwynn had 3,000 hits and very high BA. (Note Rolen pulls away pretty clearly at 70 WAR, 44 WAA, at least as long as we give credence to his defensive numbers which I more or less do -- he was certainly among the best I've seen.)
   62. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 05, 2019 at 06:07 PM (#5898932)
The only problem is the group that Baines was in shouldn't have existed for another cycle or two. As evidenced by his election, there just isn't enough Hall talent from that particular period (at least until the dam breaks on the known or nearly-known steroid guys).

This. The Modern Baseball ballot considers a 17-year window of 1970-1987. And that's players who made their "major contribution" between 1970-1987, so it can range from Tommy John who debuted in 1963 to Alan Trammell who retired in 1996 -- that's a 33-year window. And the Golden Days ballot had a 19-year window of 1950-1969.

Contrast that with the "Today's Game" ballot which only considers players whose major contributions came from 1988-present. Since it won't look at players until they've been retired for 15 years (so they're no longer eligible on the BBWAA ballot), in 2018 they could only consider guys who were *retired* by 2003 (not even guys who had made their "major contribution" by 2003, since some of those guys will continue to play for years afterwards). It was less than a 15-year window, compared to 17 and 19 years for the other committes.
   63. Jaack Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:06 PM (#5898951)
I'm under the impression that Baines got elected because the Hall is pushing for the committees to actually elect people, specifically players. There was a period there where the committees were not electing any players - just Ron Santo and Deacon White over nearly a decade. You had ballots like 2012, where there were 4 guys who got at least 50% of the vote but didn't get elected.

The Hall of Fame wants players elected, and I think are pushing the commitees to find consensus and elect players. Harold Baines had a couple of big backers in the room in Reinsdorf and La Russa, so the rest of the committee fell in line. I would guess that Trammell got helped by this push by the Hall, as did Ted Simmons - on a previous ballot, I would guess the votes would have been more split.
   64. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:52 PM (#5898957)
Lou Whitaker - should've been in long ago

Ted Simmons - looks like a HOF'er stats wise, but few thought so during his career. On the edge.


How do you differentiate these two?
   65. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 08:58 PM (#5898960)
I'm very much pro-Whitaker... don't get me remotely wrong on that... but I really don't see much difference between him and Simmons to argue one clearly over and the other as borderline...


Of course Ted Simmons is my favorite player of all time..... so I have to accept that there is an inherent bias there. (I mean I literally have every single Topps card of his playing career---thanks to my girlfriend that got me the two I was missing-) but at the same time... he was a hell of a player and his defensive shortcomings are overrated.
   66. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:04 PM (#5898962)
As to the question about Grich... can't say anything about that, he's a clear hof worthy player no matter how you judge it.. There is a debate about his value of course, but even when he played he was acknowledge as valuable, but probably not really as valuable as he really was.

   67. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:22 PM (#5898966)
The composition of the Modern Era Committee remains elusive - apparently a deliberate choice by the Hall, abetted by the media that doesn’t seem inclined to include the information in its reporting on the ballot - but this 2017 article lists the Committee Members for that year’s vote:
The Modern Era panel includes eight Hall of Fame inductees: George Brett, Rod Carew, Bobby Cox, Dennis Eckersley, John Schuerholz, Don Sutton, Dave Winfield and Robin Yount. Mets general manager Sandy Alderson, former Blue Jays president Paul Beeston, Reds president Bob Castellini, Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt, Royals chairman David Glass, veteran BBWAA members Bob Elliott and Jayson Stark and historian Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sport Bureau make up the remainder of the group.
Might have been some turnover since then.
   68. flournoy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:43 PM (#5898971)
If Bobby Cox, John Schuerholz, and Don Sutton are on the committee, hopefully that bodes well for Dale Murphy. Though I know Cox suffered a stroke earlier this year; not sure how he's doing health-wise.
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: November 05, 2019 at 09:46 PM (#5898972)
The composition of the Modern Era Committee remains elusive - apparently a deliberate choice by the Hall, abetted by the media that doesn’t seem inclined to include the information in its reporting on the ballot - but this 2017 article lists the Committee Members for that year’s vote:


I could be wrong, but it seems they only release the composition of the committees after the vote has taken place.
   70. Baldrick Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:02 PM (#5898979)
Here's my proposed reform to all these dumb VCs:
1. No limit on number of players on the ballot
2. Voters provide a simple yes/no for every player
3. The top vote-getter is inducted if and only if they receive 80% yes votes
4. If no one gets to 80%, no one is elected. Cancel the next scheduled round for the era. Come back after two cycles and try again.
   71. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:17 PM (#5898983)
If Bobby Cox, John Schuerholz, and Don Sutton are on the committee, hopefully that bodes well for Dale Murphy. Though I know Cox suffered a stroke earlier this year; not sure how he's doing health-wise.


and why would that be a good thing? There are a few names on this ballot that are clearly not worthy.. Murphy is one of them.
   72. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:19 PM (#5898985)
Here's my proposed reform to all these dumb VCs:
1. No limit on number of players on the ballot
2. Voters provide a simple yes/no for every player
3. The top vote-getter is inducted if and only if they receive 80% yes votes
4. If no one gets to 80%, no one is elected. Cancel the next scheduled round for the era. Come back after two cycles and try again.


And even though it would hurt my favorite players...

5. If you were on the previous ballot you are ineligible for the next ballot... why keep rehashing the same names.

   73. flournoy Posted: November 05, 2019 at 10:48 PM (#5898990)
and why would that be a good thing?


Because I want to see Dale Murphy in the Hall of Fame. That seems a silly question.
   74. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:34 AM (#5898997)
It's a crime that they can only vote for 4. Every one of these candidates could be put in legitimately, imho. I think the limit will result in only 2 or 3 making it in.
   75. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 06, 2019 at 03:55 AM (#5899004)

I'm under the impression that Baines got elected because the Hall is pushing for the committees to actually elect people, specifically players.

They were already electing Lee Smith, not that he's much better of a choice*. They could have elected Clark or Hershiser from that ballot and there would have been a lot less complaining (or maybe different complaining). Or they could have included someone like Cone or Saberhagen on the ballot, both of whom I think were eligible.

* Smith has to be the happiest guy that Baines got elected, otherwise he'd be the target of every one of these comments. Even though the bar for closers has always been a bit lower.
   76. flournoy Posted: November 06, 2019 at 07:19 AM (#5899009)
Smith has to be the happiest guy that Baines got elected, otherwise he'd be the target of every one of these comments.


I don't know if you meant this to be taken literally, but I would be shocked if this line of thought has ever crossed Lee Smith's mind.
   77. Rally Posted: November 06, 2019 at 08:07 AM (#5899013)
#76 agree. Any player would rather be considered among the worst selections for the HOF than to be considered among the best players not in the HOF.
   78. Rennie's Tenet Posted: November 06, 2019 at 08:35 AM (#5899023)
I think they don't just want to elect players, but living players who are still recognizable as the players they were. I think four out of five years, players from the 1970s and later get voted on.
   79. Rusty Priske Posted: November 06, 2019 at 09:37 AM (#5899039)
Well, it seems that I am in a minority. Two people I have seen on this thread listed as `clear no` are clear yes for me.

Yes
Marvin Miller
Lou Whitaker
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker

Maybe
Dwight Evans
Ted Simmons
Tommy John


No
Thurman Munson
Don Mattingly
Steve Garvey
   80. Rally Posted: November 06, 2019 at 09:44 AM (#5899040)
For me,

Yes:
Miller
Whitaker
Simmons
John

If I could vote for more than 4:
Evans

Maybe:
Munson
Murphy

No:
Parker
Mattingly
Garvey
   81. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 06, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5899054)
All the players on the ballot were better than Harold Baines, but I wouldn’t vote for any of them. I wouldn’t mind the VC just dropping players from consideration for a while. They’ve given us Jack Morris, Lee Smith and Harold Baines the last two years. At least they elected Trammell.
   82. Booey Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:02 AM (#5899073)
Curious about the "yes" on Murphy but "no" on Mattingly votes. How do you differentiate between the two? They seem very similar to me. Both were amongst the best players in the game for a half dozen years, and then added virtually no value afterwards. They were basically the 1980's versions of Nomar.
   83. Booey Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:13 AM (#5899080)
My picks:

Yes - Miller, Whitaker, Simmons

Maybe - Evans

Close but no cigar - Munson

Not even close - Everyone else
   84. Rally Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:26 AM (#5899083)
Both Mattingly and Murphy are peak candidates. Murphy has a slight edge in career WAR. Neither is close to the career WAR standard typical for a deserving HOFer.

As for peak, Murphy has more great years. Going best to worst:

DMatt 7.2 6.5 6.3 5.1 4.2 3.7 2.8 2.7
Murph 7.7 7.1 6.6 6.1 5.6 5.0 3.1 2.6

Going further down the list, Mattingly has a few more decent seasons whereas Murphy drops below replacement level. Decent seasons aren't going to get you into the HOF. I'm not sold on either being worthy, but I'd get on board for Murphy first.

   85. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5899096)
When you don't see players live I think in some situations that helps assessing the player. No chance for player related biases to develop. Like I can understand voting for both Simmons and Munson, and maybe Simmons but not Munson but Munson but no Simmons is just weird. Both guys played a tough position. Munson apparently was pretty good while Simmons rep is not supported by any facts, guy was fine back there. Both could hit. Munson played on more winning teams but Simmons had so many shitty teammates most of the time how can that be his fault? Like in 1973 the Cards played someone named Ken Reitz at third base who was clearly terrible. And the in retrospect poorly named Mike Tyson who was at least as bad and maybe worse. And in 1975 it gets better on the terrible scale as Reitz is STILL playing but even worse which is incredible and a Ted Sizemore pukes over the whole season almost as bad as Reitz. I don't see anyone that awful or close to it on Munson's teams at least not guys who were regulars or almost regulars.

And both guys were considered jerks, right? Well if I am Simmons and my management is putting out guys who clearly cannot play I might be kind of upset. What was Munson's problem? Even his mediocre teams win wise there were guys who were at least competent. You google Thurman Munson and you get return of "Not Mr Nice Guy" or prickly personality. Sounds like a lot of fun as a teammate.
   86. SoSH U at work Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:58 AM (#5899103)
And both guys were considered jerks, right?


Whitey didn't like Simmons, but I don't know how widespread that opinion was.

Munson's reputation as unpleasant was pretty universally held.

I think Simmons' reputation suffered because he was in direct competition with Bench. Interestingly, while he didn't have Johnny's arm, so many more guys tried to steal against him, and he threw them out at a decent enough clip, that he might have saved more runs with his arm than Johnny did.

   87. Esoteric Posted: November 06, 2019 at 11:58 AM (#5899105)
Clear yes:

Whitaker
Evans
Simmons

Hey, I have a fourth vote!:

John

No:

Miller
Mattingly
Munson
Murphy
Garvey

Miller said that he didn't want to be inducted after he died, and I see no reason to spit on his sincere request and thus dishonor his memory. It's not like his place in the game is in any danger of being forgotten.
   88. SoSH U at work Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:03 PM (#5899108)
Miller said that he didn't want to be inducted after he died, and I see no reason to spit on his sincere request and thus dishonor his memory.


Yeah, I don't that should be a consideration. Other guys have gone in posthumously. The Hall's job is to honor the ones who deserve it. Miller, IMO, does.
   89. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:04 PM (#5899111)
86--Thanks. old Brewer fans do not say that Simmons was a jerk. I guess the guy is pretty smart by baseball player standards and loves culture which is pretty cool. I don't know if one gets a lot of feedback when discussing impressionist paintings in the clubhouse.
   90. . Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:09 PM (#5899115)
I wrote many years ago on these boards that St. Marvin's reputation was absurdly high given that in the wake of the Messersmith/McNally decision, he had the owners entirely by the shorthairs and yet still agreed to a Basic Agreement binding players to their initial organizations for roughly a decade. Now that we're seeing the fruits of that cave-in truly ripen, one would think that his reputation would be taking a hit. Maybe it is, but it certainly should be. There's really nothing to commend him as a Hall of Famer beyond "If Bowie Kuhn and Bud Selig are in, he should be too." That's an unconvincing argument.
   91. cookiedabookie Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:12 PM (#5899118)
Among catchers, Munson is eighth all time in WAR/650 PA, basically tied with Gary Carter. He’s 12th in JAWS, and had the 8th-best seven year peak of any catcher. Plus, he deserves bonus points for playing 97.5% of his games/innings behind the plate, and being great at it. If you adjust for playing time at the position, he’s 11th all time in WAR, and all ten above him are in the Hall of Fame. He should be a no-doubt HoFer. You can argue he’s a top-ten catcher, without taking into account his early death.

   92. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:14 PM (#5899119)
90--I don't know if the strategy is terrible if it takes the other side 35-40 years to figure out a counterstrategy. Isn't this more on the guys who followed him? That's like killing Grant for winning some battle because you know if the opposition had gatling guns no way does he pull that win off.
   93. . Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:16 PM (#5899121)
Dave Parker and Dale Murphy are more deserving than Whitaker, Simmons, and Dewey. It's really not even that close. Parker and Murphy were elite-MVP type guys at their peaks, whereas Lou, Ted, and Dewey were compilers with a lot of walks who as a result have had their reputations WAR-revitalized.(*) I'd put Simmons at the top of those three, but there's no serious sense in which he was as good a player as Parker and Murphy. (As usual, I don't really care about compiling and care way more about a guy's peak playing ability.)

(*) Yuck.
   94. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 06, 2019 at 12:50 PM (#5899140)

#76 agree. Any player would rather be considered among the worst selections for the HOF than to be considered among the best players not in the HOF.

Sure, I was joking but my point was just that Baines being elected deflected a lot of the criticism of what a bad pick Smith arguably is. Everyone was like "I can sort of understand Smith but *Baines*? What were they thinking?" Whereas without Baines, people would have just said "Lee Smith? What were they thinking?"

In reality, Smith and Baines were both probably overjoyed to be elected and don't give a damn what anyone on the Internet thinks. And that's the way they should have reacted.
   95. Rally Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:02 PM (#5899145)
Dave Parker and Dale Murphy are more deserving than Whitaker, Simmons, and Dewey. It's really not even that close.


I'll leave Simmons out of it because I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare catchers to other positions. When it comes to Dewey, he was every bit as good as Parker was in his best seasons if you make any kind of adjustment for his best season, 1981, where his totals are shortened by the strike. Outside of his best half dozen seasons, Parker wasn't any good. Murphy, I'll grant he was the best of the group in peak value. Doesn't necessarily make him better. Evans has more career value thanks to playing well to age 37 instead of 31. It's a matter of preference as to which is more deserving, there is no objective right or wrong answer on the peak vs. career question.
   96. DanG Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:05 PM (#5899148)
Players with 40 WAR thru age-32 season, minimum 900 G at catcher:

Player          WARWAAOPSRfield   PA From   To
Johnny Bench    72.9 47.8  129   88.0 7705 1967 1980 H
Gary Carter     66.2 43.1  124  123.8 6900 1974 1986 H
Ivan Rodriguez  59.4 34.5  115  132.0 7215 1991 2004 H
Mike Piazza     51.2 35.4  155  
-25.1 5193 1992 2001 H
Ted Simmons     48.6 24.6  124  
-14.8 7444 1968 1982
Joe Mauer       48.4 26.6  129    3.0 6244 2004 2015
Yogi Berra      47.2 28.7  128   22.3 6086 1946 1957 H
Bill Dickey     47.0 27.5  131   23.0 5509 1928 1939 H
Mickey Cochrane 46.2 24.8  129  
-37.0 5906 1925 1935 H
Thurman Munson  46.1 25.5  116   31.5 5905 1969 1979
Bill Freehan    42.5 21.4  114   35.0 6177 1961 1974
Buster Posey    42.1 25.8  128   54.0 5153 2009 2019 
   97. Jeremy Renner App is Dead and I killed it Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:07 PM (#5899149)
Joe Mauer shows up on a catchers list again and looking pretty good
   98. . Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:08 PM (#5899150)
In reality, Smith and Baines were both probably overjoyed to be elected and don't give a damn what anyone on the Internet thinks. And that's the way they should have reacted.


That's a great point and a solid conclusion/response. Virtually every movement on the internet, and especially the WAR movement in baseball, is kind of like instant replay in sports. It kind of sounds good and seems like it should work well: "Hey, if we have a bunch more data and a lot more people have access to the data and we have a communications mechanism where we can all talk about and reason through the data, it's bound to be way, way better." But then, just like we have safe guys starting to be called out en masse because their foot left the bag for a tenth of a second mid-slide, and knock-off effects like wary refs not calling an obvious pass interference with two minutes to go in the NFC championship game, we have things like "Lou Whitaker is clearly a Hall of Famer."

This kind of stuff probably happens because dissent really isn't allowed because it's deemed to be not "reasoning" or "analytical," but that really isn't thought through but instead is merely a natural response to the premises of the underlying exercise. If we all have access to the data and we're all reasoning through it, then definitionally someone who disagrees isn't reasoning. "What are you talking about, by the wording of the rules, that guy is out!! See, his foot left the bag!!!" But that's rubbish.
   99. . Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:16 PM (#5899153)
Outside of his best half dozen seasons, Parker wasn't any good. Murphy, I'll grant he was the best of the group in peak value. Doesn't necessarily make him better.


Actually, it does make him better. In every relevant sense, that's what the word "better" means. If Mike Trout had been hit by a bus four years ago, he'd still have been a better player than a bunch of guys ahead of him on the career WAR list. Moreover, you don't even need WAR to come to that conclusion. And if you don't need WAR to come to that conclusion, why would anyone ever say something like "Lou Whitaker was better than Dave Parker because he had more WAR"?
   100. Rally Posted: November 06, 2019 at 01:22 PM (#5899155)
Sure, Murphy was better than Evans up to age 31. Evans was better after 31.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(159 - 6:10am, Nov 22)
Last: TJ

NewsblogColorado School of Mines Talk – Bauer Outage
(21 - 1:22am, Nov 22)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogRob Manfred’s plan to destroy minor league baseball
(136 - 11:50pm, Nov 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(987 - 11:27pm, Nov 21)
Last: aberg

NewsblogOT - November* 2019 College Football thread
(329 - 11:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(319 - 10:43pm, Nov 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogIs MLB Ready for Robo-Umps and an Automated Strike Zone?
(13 - 10:41pm, Nov 21)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogWhite Sox Sign Yasmani Grandal
(17 - 10:32pm, Nov 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGerardo Parra Signs With Japan’s Yomiuri Giants
(35 - 8:36pm, Nov 21)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2019
(21 - 8:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogMLB isn’t confident it can produce a consistent ball, leaving GMs to adapt
(21 - 8:13pm, Nov 21)
Last: Zach

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(532 - 7:46pm, Nov 21)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogWhitewash: Rob Manfred says he doesn’t think sign stealing extends beyond the Astros
(76 - 7:37pm, Nov 21)
Last: Zach

NewsblogStark: Five things to watch on the 2020 Hall of Fame ballot – The Athletic
(1 - 6:19pm, Nov 21)
Last: ajnrules

Hall of Merit2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(240 - 3:29pm, Nov 21)
Last: Mike Webber

Page rendered in 0.7702 seconds
46 querie(s) executed